Diesel in F1? Ferrari driver thinks so
It sounds so absurd it hardly seems worth entertaining. But it seemed just as unlikely for diesel-powered prototype-class race cars to dominate at Le Mans until Audi did just that. Now Peugeot is following suit with its own high-tech, state-of-the-art diesel race car, the 908 LM, which the French company hopes can do for them what the R10 did for Audi. With over 700 horsepower from an all-aluminum 5.5-liter twelve-cylinder common-rail direct-injection twin-turbo diesel (try saying that three times fast), the sleek cat just might.
Marc Gené came to a different conclusion after driving the 908 for the first time, though: "Having driven the Peugeot, I think that diesel is a feasible route for F1 in the future." Gené is joining the Peugeot team at Le Mans right after he re-signed as a test driver for Scuderia Ferrari, but with a limit on testing imposed by the FIA, he has a little more time on his hands.
Diesels still bear a certain lethargic stigma, but with modern diesel technology seemingly getting closer to gasoline engines with every passing day, some see it as only a matter of time. It would take a massive change in regulation by the FIA, but it would certainly make previous rule-changes like the abolishment of turbos and the switch to V8s seem like mere footnotes in motorsport history.
[Source: GrandPrix.com]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Paul Anderson 8:03PM (8/08/2008)
Clearly you have to allow turbocharging for diesel engines to have any chance of competing fairly.
How about restricting diesels to 1.6 litres instead of the the 2.4 allowed for petroleum spirit (gas) engines?
Reply
SonyAD 10:23AM (10/03/2008)
The reasons gassers put out more power per cubic inch are:
1. Direct injection from a single, central point, towards the end of the compression stroke prohibits adequate vaporisation and thorough mixing and thus anything near complete usage of the oxygen available in the cyl. to sustain combustion.
In fact, air usage is extremely poor in diesel engines. Even though the stoichiometric ratios are similar for the two fuels, a diesel starts blowing smoke like a chimney long before it even gets close to stoichiometric. All diesels run lean of stoichiometric all the time. Hence the turbo needed to compensate for the poor usage of available air.
2. The pressure ratio. Which pretty much requires that every part in the engine be either large, heavy or both. Large, sturdy pistons are heavy and add reciprocating mass.
Both of these issues can be overcome through ever more turbulent burn chamber design, multi-point direct injection, smaller compression ratios and better materials technology. Unfortunately, there are cultural preconceptions, costs and practical concerns (starting a lower compression ratio diesel in the cold, etc.) to overcome. By lowering the compression ratio you'd be trading off some of the selling point that is fuel efficiency, just as turbocharging did.
I doubt we'll ever see diesels revving very high though. And why would we? 1200 Nm from a 5.5 litre is just as impressive as 20k rpm from a 2.4 litre. Why spoil two thoroughbreds by mixing two complementary approaches to producing power, one more on the torque side and fuel efficient - the other more on the rev side. Diesel is perfect for endurance racing with corners.
Reply
chuck goolsbee 8:06PM (2/12/2007)
Diesels still bear a certain lethargic stigma, but with modern diesel technology seemingly getting closer to gasoline engines with every passing day, some see it as only a matter of time.
I hate to burst your bubble, but that time has already past. Diesel fuel has more power per unit than gasoline. Always has, always will. With today's (and tomorrow's) technology, we can finally take advantage of that power.
Forget everything you think you know about Diesel, it has all been proven wrong.
--chuck
Reply
Tal 8:10PM (2/12/2007)
Good for Ferrari...show us how it can be done in the F1.
More than ample power, greater torque, better fuel mileage per gallon, and durability may be a
few reasons for driving a car with a diesel engine.
Why do we let the rest of the automotive world lead the way with diesel power?
Audi is proving or has proved the value and power a diesel can provide in a F1 race car. They have used one in an R8.
Why can't the American consumer see the potential of
diesel power? Why can't the American dealers import the diesel powered cars? Mercedes and VW are not the only manufacturers of diesel powered vehicles.
Hopefully we will see more diesels if the Japanese follow through with their plans.
We probably will not see one in an American car until everyone else is far ahead of the pack.
Maybe the F1s will demonstrate the feasibilities and possibilities a diesel engine can provide if placed in a regular automobile.
Reply
epp_b 8:31PM (2/12/2007)
How many times do you have to reminded that it's not JUST about a single figure power unit?
It's about *where* and *for how long* an engine can hold its power. You can have all the power in the world, but it's useless if you can only access it in the last 500 (yes, five hundred, not thousand) RPMs before the redline.
Reply
Mike 8:37PM (2/12/2007)
epp_b; I don't care, I'm going to buy a diesel car anyway
Reply
W 8:41PM (2/12/2007)
"You can have all the power in the world, but it's useless if you can only access it in the last 500 (yes, five hundred, not thousand) RPMs before the redline."
That's right no use at all...
Reply
Bill Hancock 8:47PM (2/12/2007)
here are a few reasons that most american cars dont use diesels. (dictated by the general public based on lack of knowledge or what they think t be true)
1)Noise
2)Pollution
3)Hard to start
4)Expensive
5)Dirty
6)Slow
Again these arent true (most of them) but they are things that the general public thinks is true and until the think otherwise diesels wont sell.
Reply
why not the LS2/LS7? 8:59PM (2/12/2007)
Absolutely, I see Diesel in F1 in the future. As soon as F1 decides to completely skew the rules like ACO did to give the Diesel the advantage, teams would be foolish not to adopt Diesel.
This is the same thing that happened in Indy cars about 15 years ago. They altered the rules to make it so pushrod motors could produce more power per unit volume/weight than OHC motors, so Ilmor made a pushrod (branded first a Mercedes and later a Chevy) and pushrod motors were off to the races.
Diesels will never be competitive in F1 unless they are allowed gobs of turbo boost. Then Diesels will make more power than current F1 gas engines. Of course, turbocharged gas F1 motors made more power than current F1 gas engines.
Energy produced by a motor isn't really limited by the energy in the fuel. You can always get more fuel into a motor. It's getting more air into the motor that's tough. And F1 motors current spin at 19,500RPM. So it pumps 3.5X as much air as a Diesel motor. You're never going to overcome that, unless the rules give you something (turbocharging) that you arbitrarilty prohibit on gas engines.
Reply
naggs 9:32PM (2/12/2007)
the biggest problem with diesel is that it burns slow and that limits RPM. there wont be any 19k rpm diesel race engines. 6-7k max.
Reply
chris 9:38PM (2/12/2007)
Of course diesels in F1 would be turbocharged? It'd be the most stupid thing ever if they weren't, I can't even think of one diesel car (car, not truck or whatever that I don't care about) that isn't turbocharged (and this is Australia where we have a lot of modern diesel passenger cars).
Reply
Mulad 10:43PM (2/12/2007)
Of course F1 gas engines might run at extreme rpms, but they also have "oversquare" combustion chambers where stroke lengths are half the width of the piston. That helps increase horsepower, but does nothing for torque.
Reply
NoNameDenton 10:56PM (2/12/2007)
After the Audi win at Le Mans with a diesel engine I would love too see more forms of racing introducing diesel engines, like Nascar, the WRC, the Australian V8 race I enjoy watching on Speed, I love diesel engines, especially in cars and trucks
Reply
chuck goolsbee 11:12PM (2/12/2007)
"You can have all the power in the world, but it's useless if you can only access it in the last 500 ... RPMs before the redline."
Ironically epp_b, in a Diesel it is just the opposite. All your power comes at the FIRST 500 rpm. ;)
heh
--chuck
Reply
nagmashot 3:04AM (2/13/2007)
Audi was not the first manufactor winning a great race with diesel powered engine. In 1998 BMW won the 24h of the Nürburgring with a diesel powered 3series.
The Audi victory was only in a higher class of Motorsport and other than BMW they did not only race a single 24h race, they completely dominate the ALMS with winning all races.
To the guy who means a race engine has to rev high... ask yourself were is the different between a powerband from 1000-5500rpm and a powerband from 14000-19000rpm... below that rpm a curret F1 engine is completly useless. The nice side effect of the diesel..over the same 4-5k rpm powerband range they have hp AND torque... plus much better mpg...and more reliable engines...
Reply
TDIMeister 3:29AM (2/13/2007)
As much as I would like to see Diesels in F1 for what it has done to advance the state-of-the-art of engine technology (at least more so in earlier years), I frankly don't see it happening unless there are significant changes to the current framework of FIA rules. For one thing, the equivalence formulas that would certainly apply would be unwieldly. I mean, how do you equate a small-displacement, 19000 RPM, normally-aspirated engine to a necessarily turbocharged engine? And speaking as someone inside engine research, I don't see Diesels as we know it matching the revs capable in current gasoline F1 engines.
The only way this could happen is a drastic shift in F1 rules. One way this could play out is a return to employing air restrictors and introducing a rule to fixed the amount of fuel available to each team per race (that amount equated on an energy content basis but otherwise independent of the type of fuel itself). Then teams would be left to their own devices of what technologies they want to employ.
Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen because of F1's stated goal to cap development costs by freezing engine designs. If this Ferrari guy knows something we don't, GREAT, bring on the Diesels! But interpreting the text of the original article, this seems to me as nothing more than speculation gone rampant of someone of influence's opinion that Diesels are cool after having driven one. On that I would have to agree. :)
Reply
Neo.Luxembourg 6:17AM (2/13/2007)
I like Diesels, as I drive a Ibiza Cupra TDI, and this "news" is rely great ...
But, i don't know if F1 is the right place for Diesel to start. WRC would be better ...
An with Subaru making a Diesel-Boxer motor, this could be something interesting. I would like to see Diesel vs Petrol in the same Racing Class ... ;)
Reply
mike 8:27AM (2/13/2007)
The road blocks that that FIA would put up - for what ever reason they might have - would almost make it impossible for a dramatic technological change like this to take place in F1. The FIA is too political, to arrogant, narrow minded and very indecisive when it comes to F1. Those monkeys are largely responsible for the state that F1 is in now, with their constant changes of regulations - midway through the season - as well as some real dumb-assed ideas that they bring to F1.
So, for get about seeing diesel in F1!
#2, if you want to demonstrate to Americans that diesels can kick butt, then you have to put them into NASCAR. Americans don't watch F1.
Reply
MikeW 12:39PM (2/13/2007)
Diesel isn't going to happen unless they limit the number of gears to 5 from 7.
From the full power torque curve from the Ferrari F1-2000, 250ft-lbs@14,000rpm, 665hp
So without the variable length intake air horns, a 2.4V8 is 'only' going to make ~500hp@14,000, it is a good place to start, running up to the rules limited 19,000
Reply